Court of Appeal
New South Wales
Case Title: Aquaqueen International Pty Ltd v Weber Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWCA 101 Hearing Date(s): 20/03/2014 Decision Date: 20 March 2014 Before: Beazley P at [24];
Emmett JA at [1]Decision: (1) Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
(2) Order 2 of the notice of motion filed 17 March 2014 refused and, to that extent, dismissed with costs.[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: COSTS - cost assessment scheme - enforcement of cost certificates - recovery of costs of the cost assessment process
PROCEDURE - judgments and orders - whether judgment obtained irregularly pursuant to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 - whether judgment should be set aside on a discretionary basis
PROCEDURE - judgments and orders - in general - failure to be notified of judgment - whether prejudice thereby caused
CORPORATIONS - winding up - statutory demand under s 459E, Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - failure to comply with statutory demand - application for order setting aside statutory demandLegislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 459C, 459E, 459F, 459G Cases Cited: Kassem & Anor v Koutavas [2012] NSWSC 236 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Aquaqueen International Pty Ltd (ACN 094 129 389) (Applicant)
Wolfgang Weber (Respondent)Representation - Counsel: Counsel:
Applicant (represented with leave by its director, S Penson)
D Klineberg (Respondent)- Solicitors: Solicitors:
MSB Lawyers (Respondent)File Number(s): 2013/283534 Decision Under Appeal - Before: Garling J - Date of Decision: 05 September 2013 - Citation: [2013] NSWSC 1181 - Court File Number(s): 2012/3708022012/392186 Publication Restriction: No
JUDGMENT
EMMETT JA: We have before us today an application for leave to appeal from orders made by Garling J on 5 September 2013 together with an application for a stay of those orders.
On 5 September 2013, Garling J dismissed a notice of motion filed on 11 December 2012 by the present applicant, Aquaqueen International Pty Limited (Aquaqueen). His Honour also dismissed an application filed on 17 December 2012 to set aside a statutory demand made on Aquaqueen by the present respondent, Mr Wolfgang Weber.
The notice of motion of 11 December 2012 sought the setting aside of a judgment entered in the Supreme Court on 28 November 2012 in consequence of the registration of costs assessments. As a result of that judgment, a statutory demand pursuant to s 459E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) was made by Mr Weber. That prompted the second application for the statutory demand to be set aside, under s 459G of the Corporations Act.
The present dispute arose out of District Court proceedings commenced by Aquaqueen against…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Aquaqueen International Pty Ltd v Weber and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] NSWCA 101
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the judgment obtained by Weber was irregular pursuant to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), and if so, whether it should be set aside on a discretionary basis. The Court also considered the applicant's argument that it had not been notified of the judgment and had suffered prejudice.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Beazley P and Emmett JA, dismissed the applicant's summons seeking leave to appeal. The Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the judgment was irregular or that it had suffered prejudice. The Court noted the provisions of Rule 36.11 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, which stipulate that a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system, and the time limits for setting aside judgments under Rule 36.16.
Consequently, the Court refused Order 2 of the notice of motion filed on 17 March 2014, and to that extent, dismissed the application with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
(2) Order 2 of the notice of motion filed 17 March 2014 refused and, to that extent, dismissed with costs.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.